Nurjahan Begum Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.

¶32

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed putting to challenge an order dated 09.08.2022 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Barpeta in FT Case No. 2855/2018 [IM(D)T Ref. No.1167/2K] whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post 1971. The primary ground of challenge is that the order in question has been passed ex-parte.

¶33

We have heard Shri P.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, Ms. R.B. Bora, learned State Counsel and Shri. S. Kakati, learned CGC.

¶34

Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in her absence and the petitioner was not aware of the proceeding. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, the learned counsel has submitted that though there has been certain observation that the petitioner did not appear in spite of service of notice, he has questioned the very fact that the notice was received by her. He has also submitted that though there is a report of the Process Server that the petitioner had received the notice, it is contended that the thumb impression is not of the petitioner who is otherwise able to write her name. He has also submitted that

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

on 28.01.2026, after coming to know of the said order, a petition was filed under Order 9 Rule 13, r/w Section 151 of the CPC, praying for vacating the ex parte order which however was also dismissed vide the order dated 18.02.2026. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order be interfered with and the petitioner be given a fair opportunity to defend herself.

¶37

Shri Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel, Home Department has however justified the impugned opinion dated 09.08.2022 and also the subsequent order dated 28.01.2026. He has submitted that from a reading of the order dated 09.08.2022, it would be apparent that sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to appear and defend herself. In this connection, he has referred to the observations made by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the impugned order wherein all the 9 dates have been referred which were fixed and in those dates, the petitioner did not appear and file her written statement and only thereafter the impugned order has been passed. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order 1964, more particularly, Order 3C thereof which has prescribed a limitation of 30 days in filing an application for vacating ex parte order. He has submitted that the subsequent order of the learned Tribunal dated 18.02.2026 appears to be in sync with the requirement of law as laid down above.

¶38

The learned counsel for the other respondents have also supported the submissions of Shri Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the summons were not received by her and the thumb impression appearing in the service report does not belong to her.

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

While the aforesaid aspect would be a contentious issue involving the factual dispute, we are of the considered opinion that instead of going to the said aspect, interest of justice would be served if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to defend herself in the proceeding initiated against her.

¶42

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order dated 09.08.2022 and the subsequent order dated 28.01.2026, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as an exceptional case, we allow the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal and file her written statement on or before 25.05.2026. On such filing of written statement, the learned Tribunal is directed to accept the same and take charge of the proceedings.

¶43

We have noted that the aforesaid Order of 1964 also envisages a particular time for completion of the proceeding which is 60 days. In this connection, Order 3 (14) may be referred to. We accordingly observe that the learned Tribunal would make an endeavour to abide by the aforesaid provisions of law and complete the proceeding expeditiously.

¶44

If the petitioner however fails to abide by the direction of this Court to file the written statement on or before the stipulated date i.e., 25.05.2026, the impugned order dated 09.08.2022 would be deemed to have attained finality.

¶45

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

¶46

Comparing Assistant

¶47

JUDGE JUDGE

Nurjahan Begum v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurjahan Begum v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Das Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Abdul Noor @ Batul Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Helal Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sandhya Biswas Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Shajida Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ms Moiram Nessa Vs the Union of India